Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Training Under Way For New Nuclear Plant Operators In S. Carolina

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the we-figure-cut-the-red-fire-first dept.

Power 74

"Start thinking about getting your tinfoil hat radiation hardened," writes an anonymous reader, and excerpts thus from ABC News: "Southern Co. in Georgia and SCANA Corp. in South Carolina are the first to prepare new workers to run a recently approved reactor design never before built in the United States. Training like it will be repeated over the decades-long lifetime of those plants and at other new ones that may share the technology in years to come. Both power companies are building pairs of Westinghouse Electric Corp. AP1000 reactors at Plant Vogtle near Augusta and SCANA Corp.'s Summer Nuclear Station northwest of Columbia, S.C. While the nuclear industry had earlier proposed a larger building campaign, low natural gas prices coupled with uncertainty after last year's disaster at a Japanese nuclear plant have scaled back those ambitions." Getting a new nuclear plant approved is a long haul.

cancel ×

74 comments

SC Legend (5, Funny)

Tokolosh (1256448) | about a year and a half ago | (#42348319)

South Carolina has the largest number of nuclear facilities and radioactive waste in the USA.

Washington DC has the largest number of lawyers.

South Carolina won the toss and had first choice.

Re:SC Legend (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42348575)

So that explains why they vote Republican! They're suffering from radiation poisoning!

Re:SC Legend (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42348695)

"South Carolina has the largest number of nuclear facilities and radioactive waste in the USA."

And the largest number of racists, morons...

Re:SC Legend (0, Flamebait)

Nadaka (224565) | about a year and a half ago | (#42349115)

That is only because of the low population numbers in Mississippi and Alabama, they got you beat in % of racists and morons.

Re:SC Legend (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42349501)

And the largest number of racists, morons...

Not true, per-capita South Dakota has more racists and morons than any state south of the Mason-Dixon line. They're the only state to elect a murdering rapist [wikipedia.org] to the US House of Representatives and twice to the Governor's mansion.

Re:SC Legend (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42350567)

Yes, because it's totally believable that there would be a stop sign to run in a 55mph zone.

Wikipedia sucks and is a horrible source to depend on, especially when you're trying to look snarky on the Internet from your mom's basement.

Re:SC Legend (2)

holmstar (1388267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42350705)

Have you never driven outside of a city? Most roads are 55mph, and there are stop signs at pretty much every intersection (in at least one direction).

Re:SC Legend (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42351187)

Murderer? Really?

Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts had a car accident in which Mary Jo Kopechne was killed. Does that make him a murderer, too?

Your link for William Janklow says he was accused of rape. He was accused, yes, but given his age and how out of shape he was - from his photos - the gal in question could probably have beat him to a pulp. We do not know if he was falsely accused, but there was not enough evidence so the charges were dropped.

Please consider that Wikipedia will say what the last person to edit it wants it to say. William Janklow was a Republican. I doubt that his Democratic opponent will allow Wikipedia to cast him in a good light, even if he is already dead.

Re:SC Legend (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42353091)

The rape happened in 1975... dipshit.

Re:SC Legend (0)

DeadCatX2 (950953) | about a year and a half ago | (#42353673)

Your link for William Janklow says he was accused of rape. He was accused, yes, but given his age and how out of shape he was - from his photos - the gal in question could probably have beat him to a pulp.

The victim was a 15-year old girl against a 26-year old adult male at the time of the rape.

Please consider that Wikipedia will say what the last person to edit it wants it to say.

Incorrect, Wikipedia has a history [wikipedia.org] that can show you everything that was ever on the article, so it says everything that every person ever edited it to say. If you think there have been malicious edits made recently to his entry, you should check that history and you can revert it back.

Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts had a car accident in which Mary Jo Kopechne was killed. Does that make him a murderer, too?

Janklow was convicted of manslaughter. I agree that "murderer" is the wrong term for someone with that conviction. However, Janklow was doing 70 in a 55 and ran a stop sign. In contrast, Kennedy was doing 20 on an unlit dirt road with no guard rail when he drove off the bridge and into the water. Kennedy also claimed to have tried at least seven times to dive down to the car. Kennedy was convicted of leaving the scene of an accident.

Better at Nukes? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42348375)

I hope they are better at operating nukes than they are at building airplanes.

Re:Better at Nukes? (1)

Thorodin (1999352) | about a year and a half ago | (#42348555)

What do you mean? I am just curious and NOT trying to start a debate. I just don't know what you're referring to.

Re:Better at Nukes? (2)

Steauengeglase (512315) | about a year and a half ago | (#42348721)

Boeing built a plant in N. Charleston, SC for the 787 Dreamliner seeking wages and right to work status (not to mention tax incentives). The Dreamliner has suffered from delays and electrical failure, engine and cooling problems.

Re:Better at Nukes? (1)

alexander_686 (957440) | about a year and a half ago | (#42349021)

Let’s be fair – most of the issues can be traced back to Washington – both state and district.

Re:Better at Nukes? (3, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year and a half ago | (#42349937)

How about just being reasonable. The 787 is having the same sorts of problems that every new plane gets.

Re:Better at Nukes? (2)

Quila (201335) | about a year and a half ago | (#42351919)

The South Carolina plant has nothing to do with the delays or other problems, having only opened last year. Boeing only delivered the first SC-built 787 a couple months ago, and no special problems have been found. Manufacture of components is around the world, final assembly was exclusively in unionized Washington for the first Dreamliners. That's the source of the issues you mentioned, including delays due to a union strike in Washington.

The problem the unions have with the SC plant is that they won't get their member dues and commensurate increased political power.

Re:Better at Nukes? (1)

Steauengeglase (512315) | about a year and a half ago | (#42359905)

Sorry, I didn't intend to sound critical, just guessing the most likely reason for the plane comment (unless the GP really was talking about the Wright Bros).

Re:Better at Nukes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42348817)

I dunno. The GP AC could be referring to the Wright Brothers and some weird paranoid theory about their airplane flight and such. Maybe there's something floating around the internet about how they were both frauds and it was Sir Francis Bacon who really took off from Kitty Hawk, the Wright Brothers just kept crashing their aircraft over and over again, the AC has some great-grandpappy whose farm kept getting ruined by the test flights, and the Evil Bad Guys(tm) are trying to hide the truth from all you sheeple blah blah blah blah. You never know.

Or rather, that WOULD be a feasible theory if Kitty Hawk weren't in NORTH Carolina, not SOUTH. So I'm going with the thought that maybe the GP's just a complete whackjob.

Re:Better at Nukes? (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | about a year and a half ago | (#42349459)

Could not have been Bacon.
To be a proper revision of US history it must have been done by a woman who was half black and half native american and hailed from Mexico.

Re:Better at Nukes? (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | about a year and a half ago | (#42348879)

Something from over 100 years ago where they built an airplane that barely flew 4 flights before crashing

Re:Better at Nukes? (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about a year and a half ago | (#42348993)

Something from over 100 years ago where they built an airplane that barely flew 4 flights before crashing

That was in North Carolina.

Re:Better at Nukes? (1)

Antipater (2053064) | about a year and a half ago | (#42349075)

That plane was built in Ohio, though. Shows what you get with Union labor - four flights, then blown away by the wind!

Not revolutionary (3, Interesting)

flayzernax (1060680) | about a year and a half ago | (#42348671)

The reactors them selves are chernobyl biscuis (/sarcasm).

http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/ [westinghousenuclear.com] Commonly known as a pressurized water reactor (PWR).

The only thing revolutionary is the control systems. Its more digitized and automated then ever before. Personally I don't like this, not very warm and fuzzy about the US nuclear commission and the state of the industry. I would like to see other designs implemented.

also a certified interplanetary prospector (1)

Thud457 (234763) | about a year and a half ago | (#42349061)

Automated Digital control systems?!

I've been qualified since 1980 [thenewgamer.com] !

Re:Not revolutionary (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42349119)

Actually, the most revolutionary thing in the AP1000s is the passive safety system. Also, the fact that it's a modular design is a pretty impressive thing.

Re:Not revolutionary (3, Insightful)

wjwlsn (94460) | about a year and a half ago | (#42349349)

Compare the safety, reliability, efficiency, and comfort of a car designed and built in the 60s/70s to one from the 21st century... not much revolution, but a whole lot of evolution. Which is better?

Re:Not revolutionary (1)

Jawnn (445279) | about a year and a half ago | (#42350129)

Compare the safety, reliability, efficiency, and comfort of a car designed and built in the 60s/70s to one from the 21st century... not much revolution, but a whole lot of evolution. Which is better?

21st century models, of course, but that's probably not a comparison you want to make. After all, accidents still happen and people still die, every day, in late model cars.

Re:Not revolutionary (1)

wjwlsn (94460) | about a year and a half ago | (#42350697)

Don't stretch analogies too far... they're liable to snap back and leave a welt.

Re:Not revolutionary (1)

khallow (566160) | about a year and a half ago | (#42352743)

It's worth remembering that 21st century cars are safer even when you do get in an accident, even if you can still die in them. Sure, you can come up with scenarios where nuclear reactor safeguards probably don't work, such as a direct strike by a nuclear weapon (which I might add is not as remote a likelihood as we'd like).

But it's a bit frivolous to complain that there's still a chance of an accident. You aren't just causing risk of harm for no reason after all. There's a big benefit, power being generated, as well. The combination has to be consider, not just the negative half in isolation.

Re:Not revolutionary (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42350523)

"Revolutionary" is a stupid word to use, but there is a great deal more to the AP1000 than just its improved control systems.

Most of the newer technologies used in the AP1000 are meant to deal with accidents involving loss of offsite power (E.g., the Fukushima accident). It involves a lot of passive cooling systems, which require no power or intervention to operate, and are really neat.

http://ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/station_blackout_home/passivecontainmentcooling.html

This website has a remarkably good (Though slow as hell) description of the so-called revolutionary cooling systems.

Re:Not revolutionary (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42351043)

The only thing revolutionary is the control systems.

The nuclear industry doesn't like "revolutionary". They are risk-adverse and prefer reliable, proven, known technologies over more exotic options. Sorry... but no regional power company is going to commit billions to implementing a Gen IV design [wikipedia.org] at commercial scales until this stuff is much, much further along. Not that the NRC would let it happen at this point anyways. The hurdles to any new nuclear development are enormous enough without this sort of fantasizing.

That said, I think you're overlooking this tidbit from the AP1000 [wikipedia.org] Wikipedia page:

  • 50% fewer safety-related valves
  • 35% fewer pumps
  • 80% less safety related piping
  • 85% less control cable
  • 45% less seismic building volume
  • passive cooling for up to 72 hours

This is pretty freaking cool. It's a big win for safety (that passive cooling would have been a nice backup for the 36 minutes that Vogtle lost cooling in 1990, for example). It's an even bigger win for cost reduction. A nuclear plant is basically one huge machine that is constantly undergoing maintenance. This requires a huge amount of human capital to plan, review, coordinate, practice, perform, check, and proceduralize the work in a safe and secure way. And these aren't people with art degrees... these are engineers, managers, and skilled blue-collar workers. With the AP100, nuclear's "talent cost" per MW is lowered, which means that society can generate more energy for the same amount of talent or it can allocate more human talent to other endeavors (such as going back to the moon, etc.). [Whether our society will smartly allocate this excess talent or not is a different question, admittedly, but it's still a "win" in principle for this new design.]

Disclaimer: used to support Vogtle.

Re:Not revolutionary (2)

mnooning (759721) | about a year and a half ago | (#42351351)

A passive cooling system means you do not have to pump the water. Hotter water rises to the top because there are less molecules per given volume, hence less weight, than cooler water. Actually implementing a gravity driven cooling system is a big deal.

improvements (1)

swschrad (312009) | about a year and a half ago | (#42353651)

among them are reduced need for pumping water to cool the AP1000, it is claimed that in shutdown, as long as there is water in the machine, it convectively cools without pumping.

Re:Not revolutionary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42355071)

you are truly an idiot

Why is it different? (1)

hhawk (26580) | about a year and a half ago | (#42348685)

Other than digital controls the article doesn't say how this design is different.. is it just the controls?

Re:Why is it different? (5, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | about a year and a half ago | (#42348843)

It's the first "3rd generation" reactor design to be approved, and is supposed to have much better passive-safety features than previous generations. For example, in a reactor scram, the core would be cooled by a gravity-driven cooling system that works without power.

Re:Why is it different? (2)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about a year and a half ago | (#42348893)

...and we just hope that there is no coolant leak. I suppose that is better than hoping there is no leak and hoping the cooling system remains powered, but really we need systems with better passive safety before we build more nuclear reactors.

Re:Why is it different? (2)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | about a year and a half ago | (#42349175)

AP-1000's use a natural circulation cooling feature in such an event to keep cooling flow through the core and breach.

Re:Why is it different? (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year and a half ago | (#42350373)

Did you even read what the GP said? "Coolant leak" implies that the coolant has gone, so no amount of natural circulation will help.

It emerged a month or two ago that in fact the cooling system at Fukushima was damaged by the earthquake, so even if power had been available it was compromised. We don't fully understand what happened there yet.

Re:Why is it different? (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | about a year and a half ago | (#42353323)

Did you even read what the GP said? "Coolant leak" implies that the coolant has gone, so no amount of natural circulation will help.

It emerged a month or two ago that in fact the cooling system at Fukushima was damaged by the earthquake, so even if power had been available it was compromised. We don't fully understand what happened there yet.

I did, and the design of the AP-1000, unlike Fuku's BWR design, is designed to recirculate a coolant leak within primary containment and the core. Even in Fuku's case the real issue was not the loss of coolant accident but the lack of power to recircualte it via pumps.

Re:Why is it different? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42349523)

Errr, it *IS* a passive cooling system..

You basically have to open a few explosive bolts on the reactor, and the reactor building along with the reactor enters passive-cooling mode using gravity and convection. The only "non-100%-passive" requirement is someone tops up the water cistern on the top of the building once in a while as it is used to cool *the building* and keep the convection going inside the building.

It is quite a nice design actually.

Reactors like this remain PWR because these are cheaper (building *and* cleanup) and more understood than something like molten lead. After expected 80-100 year service life, the AP-1000 pressure vessel should be the only thing is highly radioactive for few decades. Basically, work for 100 years, store for 100 years, recycle into another reactor.

Re:Why is it different? (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year and a half ago | (#42352107)

"...and we just hope that there is no coolant leak."

If there is a coolant leak, you just pump in more coolant. Or hava a passive reservoir supply more. If it is a REALLY major breach, you're probably SOL anyway.

Re:Why is it different? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42349253)

Not a lot of driving potential with gravity driven systems...a pump is better IMO

Re:Why is it different? (1)

wjwlsn (94460) | about a year and a half ago | (#42349445)

Depending on the flow you need, and the conditions under which the flow must be provided, a pump *is* better under many circumstances.

However, in a harsh environment, with no power, and an absolute need for a certain amount of flow, gravity/convection driven systems may be a whole lot more desirable.

Re:Why is it different? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42349001)

Its a new design, but PWR's have been around for awhile. Its like a refit of older designs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000 [wikipedia.org]

Re:Why is it different? (5, Informative)

wjwlsn (94460) | about a year and a half ago | (#42349163)

On top of the digital controls, it has vastly simpler mechanical and electrical design, yielding significant reductions in the amounts of safety-related piping, cabling, valves, seismic building volume, etc.

Something that should be appreciated, but is seldom mentioned: the design work has been conducted using modern computers and software incorporating vastly improved analytical methods for nuclear, thermal, mechanical, civil, and electrical analysis. The last round of plants built in the US were designed in the 60s and 70s using tools that seem positively ancient by today's standards.

Re:Why is it different? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42349319)

One of the issues I have heard discussed is the extreme difficulty of getting a plant approved and the more modern reactor designs approved.

Yes, force the old designs to continue running and stave off improvements. That will keep us SAFE!

Re:Why is it different? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42349751)

One of the issues I have heard discussed is the extreme difficulty of getting a plant approved and the more modern reactor designs approved.

That's not a bad thing - it is a good thing. That is something that we've learned from the mistakes of the past. NRC does not want to end up with two dozen slightly different reactor types all over the place or with something that has "gotchas".

Reactors like AP-1000 are designed for 80-100 year lifespans. You don't want to speed up approval and review by a few years and then find out that there was a minor problem that was overlooked but then you are stuck with 10 or so for the next 100 years!!

The old designs have gotchas and everyone knows about some of them. Sometimes old is safer simply because you have experience running it.

Re:Why is it different? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42350289)

can you imagine if reactor generations were versioned like the Linux kernel?

"This AP1000 version 2.6.18-308.8.1.0.1.el5 just had a station blackout, and we need to monitor the cooling systems. Hey Bob, did they reconfigure the valves for the cooling system in that version? Or was it the next one?"

"I think it was in 2.6.18-311.7.2.0.3.el5... I'll ask someone to confirm that, but it'll take a few minutes."

Re:Why is it different? (1)

hackertourist (2202674) | about a year and a half ago | (#42350463)

Is it going to be standardized? In a previous /. story I read that US nuclear power plants are usually designed by an architect, so every plant ends up having a different layout from the next even if the core components are the same. In France, on the other hand, they're all built to the same design, so operating procedures etc. all transfer from one plant to the next.

Re:Why is it different? (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a year and a half ago | (#42351681)

An architect? No. Nobody cares if the containment is built to the golden ratio.

Engineers? Yes.

Meaning it should be torn down but will not fall down.

Re:Why is it different? (1)

dbIII (701233) | about a year and a half ago | (#42357155)

You standardise stuff once you've had a few trial runs and you know what works. The first ever AP1000 was supposed to be started up in China this year but I'm not sure if that happened or not, but either way, it's still very early days for this design.

Re:Why is it different? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42349179)

The AP1000 is different than previous designs in that emergency cooling does not rely on backup AC power to function. Instead, cooling relies on 'passive' features like gravity and convection. For example, in the event of a severe accident, water stored in a 750,000 gallon tank above the reactor building, is released and cascades over the exterior of the containment vessel, cooling it through evaporation. This evaporation in turn sets up convection currents inside the containment vessel that cools the reactor (picture it raining inside containment). The tank holds enough water for approximately 72 hours of cooling and requires no operator actions to initiate.

Touch Screen (1)

Frankie70 (803801) | about a year and a half ago | (#42349381)

I heard it has touch screens and supports multitouch.

Re:Touch Screen (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year and a half ago | (#42351139)

why the does the core have a popcorn button.

it is fantastic story (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42349457)

it is fantastic story,i like it . http://forexfog.com/ [forexfog.com]

New designs are great (1)

SteveDorries (1313401) | about a year and a half ago | (#42349935)

I'm glad to see new designs being used. But why do we keep beating the Uranium drum? Thorium is cheap, it's plentiful, and a thorium based reactor can produce useful byproducts.

Re:New designs are great (2)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year and a half ago | (#42352141)

I'm with you on that. Thorium really seems to be the way to go. Safer, simpler, more plentiful, not as prone to "nuclear proliferation" (i.e., fuel for warheads), more useful byproducts, and much less waste product.

Re:New designs are great (2)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year and a half ago | (#42352173)

I should add that we have had experimental thorium reactors here in the U.S. in the past, and we learned at lot. And India has approved the build of a thorium reactor for electricity generation.

Re:New designs are great (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42358439)

Don't get me wrong, thorium may be the future. But it's still a long way off from being used in regular commercial reactors. I say this as being very pro-nuclear power, for its safety and environmental record.

Most thorium reactors being built or studied are liquid fluoride thorium reactor. Molten salt reactors are not exactly my favorites, due to corrosion issues. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor#Disadvantages

Uranium is dirt cheap, plentiful, and proven. Our oceans alone can provide enough uranium to last the world a very very long time, and that is mostly replenished through the wonders of erosion. But even that is uneconomical as conventionally mined uranium is much cheaper. Honestly, I'd only recommend a push for thorium after a couple decades of running a handful of quasi experimental commercial-grid thorium reactors.

What-Could-Possibly-Go-Wrong (0)

srobert (4099) | about a year and a half ago | (#42350307)

South Carolina, Nuclear Plant.
  This should have a what-could-possibly-go-wrong tag.

Re:What-Could-Possibly-Go-Wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42356407)

Sure, let's make fun of South Carolina. After all, they're actually doing something and you're just being a smart-ass. Is there a technology equivalent term for hipster?

Simpsons reference? (1)

sunderland56 (621843) | about a year and a half ago | (#42350367)

37 comments and no Homer Simpson reference? Slashot is slipping.

Re:Simpsons reference? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42350507)

37 comments and no Homer Simpson reference? Slashot is slipping.

Who's that?

mr burns is to cheap to have a internet link to th (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year and a half ago | (#42350993)

mr burns is to cheap to have a internet link to the plant.

Re:Simpsons reference? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42356415)

The Simpsons was a popular show from a time gone by when anti-nuclear groups ran rampant. I am glad it has finished and I don't think it will be missed much.

Long haul? (2)

Quila (201335) | about a year and a half ago | (#42351795)

To be fair, it was only three years from submission to approval and publishing in the register, not bad really. But then Westinghouse submitted several revisions over the succeeding years, triggering more reviews and approvals.

Why not solar? (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about a year and a half ago | (#42351879)

If they habe the money to build two nuclear plants, why can't they build a solae thermal one? A molten salt based ne that also generates energy over night?

Re:Why not solar? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42358465)

Because solar is not absolutely steady for decades on end and doesn't produce nearly the same amount of electricity. And molten salt is a lot harder to deal with than you'd think.

That is the equivalent of asking why one would buy a semi-trailer truck instead of a Prius. Sure, the Prius is a very nice car. It can get you from point A to point B in comfort and in an economical manner. But it'd be unpleasant to try to move large amounts of cargo in one. Everything has its own time and place.

Re:Why not solar? (1)

olau (314197) | about a year and a half ago | (#42359413)

Actually, it's a valid point. I don't know about the cost in the US, but I've seen figures for European nuclear plants to be built (we'll se if it actually happens), and they end up being a lot more expensive than wind turbines per kWh (probably similar for solar if you are a bit closer to equator than we are in Scandinavia) because the whole thing is so damn complex.

Now before someone chimes in with "base load", remember that consumption isn't flat like the output of a nuclear plant. Meaning that either you can only use nuclear power for a smaller part of the total required electricity, or you will have to have the power stations go idle (in the summer or in the winter or at night depending on location) meaning no income = higher cost per kWh. Or you need storage, just like you do with intermittent sources like solar and wind.

People laugh at the decision of the Germans to eventually close their nuclear plants and not replace them, but fact is that new nuclear is a lot more expensive than people seem to think. Perhaps because people look at old plants where the huge initial capital costs have long been sunk.

lol (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42351941)

Well..... if their reactors are anything like their electronics we all gonna die.

critical training test #1: (1)

swschrad (312009) | about a year and a half ago | (#42353669)

pass: run a 4-minute mile.

i have a question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42360589)

why do they call it "nuclear power plant"?
in reality it mostly makes toxic garbage that last forever. sure, on the side it also makes some
electricity.
1 kilo of uranium gets turned into everlasting super toxic garbage and on the side 1 million people get to watch TV for one evening ..lol.
"a new breed of toxic waste generator operators are being trained in the usa..."

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...